The libel claim filed by Alliance For Change (AFC) member, Cathy Hughes against Vice President, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo began on Friday, September 6, 2024, before Justice P. Chandra-Haniff at the High Court in Georgetown.
The case arises from Jagdeo allegedly referring to Hughes as a ‘lowlife’ during his press conference on November 23, 2023. Vice President Jagdeo is represented by prominent attorney Sanjeev Datadin, while Hughes is represented by her husband, attorney Nigel Hughes.
So far, Cathy Hughes is the only witness in the trial and was subjected to a methodical and intense cross-examination by Datadin for most of the day.
Hughes testified that Jagdeo’s ‘lowlife’ comment was offensive, hence the reason she brought the proceedings against him. She denied ever being referred to as a lowlife by anyone except on some occasions in Parliament. However, during cross-examination, she was confronted with a printed Facebook post from December 2023, in which her husband publicly referred to her as a ‘lowlife.’ Hughes admitted to this, acknowledging that her husband had indeed used the term.
Initially, Hughes testified that Jagdeo made the ‘lowlife’ comment during his press conference on November 23, 2023, one of his regular weekly press briefings. She sought to introduce only a 50-second clip of the press conference as evidence. However, Datadin strongly objected, arguing that the clip, which came from a press conference that lasted over 1 hour and 30 minutes, was incomplete and did not provide the full context of the ‘lowlife’ comment. He argued that admitting such a brief excerpt was unfair and prejudicial, as it altered the context of Jagdeo’s remarks. The court suggested that the case law was clear on such matters, prompting Hughes to submit the entire recording of the press conference as evidence.
During cross-examination, Hughes admitted that in the full recording, Jagdeo addressed two issues related to her. First, he referred to her accusations that he had given a “channel” to Venezuela, which she acknowledged was inaccurate. She admitted she was aware that the channel issue with Venezuela had been raised before Jagdeo’s involvement in government. She also conceded that Jagdeo had no role in government in 1989, and that Dr. Barton Scotland had initially raised the issue of the “channel,” not Jagdeo. Furthermore, she admitted that her only basis for the claim was a TikTok video, which she did not have and had not submitted as evidence.
Secondly, Hughes acknowledged that while serving as a Minister, she had signed cheques for her company and approved invoices sent to her ministry by her company, resulting in millions of dollars in contracts awarded to her business. She also admitted that several people had commented on her actions, and she had never sued anyone for these accusations, including Jagdeo. When asked why she hadn’t sued Jagdeo, she responded that she knew he had the documents to prove it, having seen them in newspapers and on social media.
When Datadin pressed her on whether a Minister awarding contracts to their own company was inappropriate or wrong, Hughes would only say, “It depends.”
Regarding Jagdeo’s actual remarks at the press conference, Hughes admitted that he did not mention her appearance, gender, or ethnicity at any point.
The case is set to continue on September 26, 2024, when Hughes will return for further cross-examination by Datadin. The trial will also continue on October 14, 2024.
